While Hamas’s ability to retaliate is weakened, a response could come from an axis of Iran-backed militias
Ismail Haniyeh, like many prominent Hamas figures, lived under constant threat of assassination. His reported death in a missile strike in Tehran, the Iranian capital, appears to be the latest bold Israeli operation targeting its enemies worldwide.
Following the brutal Hamas attack on October 7, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Hamas’s leadership, including those outside Gaza, were “marked for death.”
The timing and location of Haniyeh’s assassination could add yet another destabilizing factor to a conflict already teetering on the brink of regional war. Missteps in this intricate dance of airstrikes and targeted killings are ever-present possibilities, with stakes continually rising.
Killing the head of Hamas’s political bureau is ostensibly a significant morale boost for Israel, a benefit for the unpopular Netanyahu, and a severe blow to Hamas.
Despite almost ten months of fighting in Gaza, Israel had, until now, failed to eliminate Hamas’s top leaders. The mastermind of October 7, Yahya Sinwar, remains at large in Gaza. Additionally, it is unclear whether a massive airstrike earlier this month targeting the group’s military commander, Mohammed Deif, was successful.
Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk confirmed Haniyeh’s death during a visit to Tehran for the new Iranian president’s inauguration. Marzouk described the killing as a “grave escalation” that “will not go unpunished,” although the Islamist movement’s ability to respond is severely weakened after almost a year of conflict with Israeli forces in Gaza.
A response might instead come from Hamas’s allies, drawing the Middle East closer than ever to a regional conflict between Israel, Iran, and its proxies. Haniyeh’s death came just hours after Israel claimed it killed a top Hezbollah commander in Beirut, Lebanon, and the region is already bracing for the powerful Shia militia’s reaction.
Since Hezbollah joined the conflict on October 8, Israel and Hezbollah have engaged in a war of attrition along the blue line separating Lebanon from the Jewish state. Tensions have risen since an airstrike on Saturday that killed 12 children in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. Hezbollah has denied responsibility for the attack.
Iran, unable to protect one of its most important allies on its own soil, may need to save face. A spokesperson for Iran’s Supreme National Security Council stated early Wednesday that the perpetrators of the Tehran attack would face “a response,” according to the Lebanese network Al-Mayadeen.
Iranian state television also reported that the assassination would provoke “retaliation” from the Shia axis of militias across the Middle East backed by Iran. Several of these proxies, including Yemen’s Houthis, have already launched missiles and drones at Israeli and US assets in the region over the past nine months, ostensibly to support Hamas’s war effort.
The people of Gaza and Israeli hostages held in Hamas’s tunnels are the immediate victims here, as a breakthrough in the prolonged ceasefire talks is now even less likely.
As the head of the group’s politburo, based in Doha, Qatar, Haniyeh was a key figure in negotiations mediated by Egypt, Qatar, and the US aimed at achieving a lasting ceasefire and a hostage and prisoner release deal. Iranian state television reported that Haniyeh’s death would delay the negotiations by “several months.”
While Hamas is accustomed to replacing and promoting new leaders in the wake of Israeli assassinations, losing a globally recognized figure like Haniyeh will have a significant operational impact. The 62-year-old Hamas veteran managed the movement’s relationships with allies in Tehran and across the region, including Hezbollah.
The politburo leader was also widely considered more pragmatic and open to negotiation with Israel than hardliners like Sinwar, the group’s leader in Gaza.
Haniyeh was an early advocate inside Hamas for political and diplomatic efforts alongside armed resistance and adopted his predecessor’s revised 2017 charter, which implicitly accepted the existence of Israel.
The October 7 assault was partly a response to hardening attitudes toward Palestinians in Israel as the country shifted to the right politically. This has inevitably led to intense scrutiny of Hamas’s apparent previous willingness to pursue a diplomatic solution to the conflict.
How much Haniyeh knew about the attack beforehand is not clear, although he was quick to champion it. His removal is unlikely to prompt the group to adopt a more conciliatory position.
